https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113644 Permission for removal of polyester yarn under Rule 57F(2), granted where neither inputs nor finished goods fell within the notified Modvat scheme, cannot prevent duty recovery because an unlawful permission creates no enforceable right and estoppel cannot operate against law. Earlier decisions based on departmental understanding or supporting circumstances do not apply where the permission is plainly inconsistent with the statutory framework. The alternative claim under Rule 56A requires adjudication, including factual verification of duty-paid and duty-free quantities, imported goods, and correlation between removed yarn and yarn exported or cleared on duty payment. Fresh adjudication is therefore required on that statutory defence and related facts. en-us Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 May 2012 13:14:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113644 Permission for removal of polyester yarn under Rule 57F(2), granted where neither inputs nor finished goods fell within the notified Modvat scheme, cannot prevent duty recovery because an unlawful permission creates no enforceable right and estoppel cannot operate against law. Earlier decisions based on departmental understanding or supporting circumstances do not apply where the permission is plainly inconsistent with the statutory framework. The alternative claim under Rule 56A requires adjudication, including factual verification of duty-paid and duty-free quantities, imported goods, and correlation between removed yarn and yarn exported or cleared on duty payment. Fresh adjudication is therefore required on that statutory defence and related facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113644